ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(President)
1. There are two complainants. Second complainant is the director of the
first complainant. The word ‘complainant’ used in this order will mean and include both
the complainants. There are three opposite parties. All the three can be termed as
‘insurance company’ or ‘insurer’.
2. Complainant had taken an insurance policy known as “Money in Transit
Insurance and Fidelity” to the tune of Rs. 100 Crores. This policy was in force when the
incident alleged in the complaint occurred. Complainant required this insurance to
cover cash movement which cash he collected from the market on sale of gold and silver
etc. and could be deposited in certain Bank. As to what the policy sought to indemnify
the complainant, the relevant clause has been set down in the complaint which reads as
under:
“…to indemnify the insured against loss of money in transit, by the
insured or insured’s authorised employee(s), occasioned by Robbery,
Theft or any other fortuitous cause. Further the company shall also
indemnify loss of money by Burglary, Housebreaking. Robbery or hold
up whilst money is retained at insured’s premises, in safe(s) or
strongroom, more particularly described in the schedule…”
3. It is alleged that on 15.2.99 complainant sent three of its employees for
deposit of cash of Rs. 50.00 lakhs in the various Banks in the city. These three
employees namely Rajiv, Tikku ane one Ganashyam carried the cash in Maruti
car. This cash was kept in three bags, two bags contained Rs. 10.00 lakhs each and one
bag contained Rs. 30.00 lakhs. Babloo was the driver of the car. They stopped at State
Bank of India, Darya Ganj, to deposit Rs. 10.00 lakhs. It is stated that the Rajiv and Tikku
took a bag containing Rs. 10.00 lakhs and went inside the State Bank. After some time
Bablu also went to the Bank with the excuse of drinking water and when he came ount
he gave a message to Ganshayam that Rajiv was calling him in the Bank. It was stated
that it was not true that Rajiv had called Ganashyam. However, Ganashyam went inside
the Bank and meanwhile Babloo drove away with cash of Rs. 30.00 lakhs and 10
lakhs in the remaining two bags. However he was stuck in the traffic jam. He left the
car and ran away with one bag containing Rs. 10 lakhs. It was stated, on the basis of
statement of Babloo, that he could not carry the bag containing Rs. 30.00 lakhs as it was
too heavy. An alert Police got suspicious and intercepted Babloo. Rs. 10.00 lakhs were
recovered. However, there was no trace of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. First information report was
lodged. Investigation revealed that one Babu Khan was also an accomplice and he
planned the heist. It is stated that police after completion of investigation filed a
challan in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against Babloo and Babu Khan.
Criminal trial is going on the Babu Khan has been absconding.
4. Complainant lodged its claim with the insurer claiming Rs. 1.80 crores as
under:
(i) Actual loss so occurred due to money in transit
and being robbed : Rs. 30.00 lakhs
(ii) Loss in business due to delay in non-payment of
the claim so lodged etc. Rs. 100 crore
(ii) Compensation for harassment both physical
and mental meted out to the complainant Rs. 50.00 lakhs.
5. Insurance Co. repudiated the claim. It did not admit the version as given
by the complainant about the loss of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. Reference had also been made to
the cash books of the complainant of the date of occurrence and of two dates earlier. It is
stated that the employees have given conflicting statements of the incident. Reference
has also been made to various other clauses of the insurance policy to contend that the
claim made was not maintainable.
6. Whatever may be the legal position regarding interpretation of various
clauses of the policy, the fact remains that facts of the case are quite complex and would
require a great deal of evidence, even calling the Police witnesses. Claim of Rs. 1.80
crores is not only excessive but in the circumstances appears to be outrageous. The
record as stood today consists of more than 350 pages. Evidence has to be led, both
oral and documentary. It is not possible for this Commission to try the present complaint
in summary jurisdiction. We would, therefore, dismiss the complaint but that would
not debar the complainant from seeking its remedy in civil court or any other appropriate
forum.